[allengeorge]

I guess it depends on one's beliefs, who they're willing to inconvenience and long-term goals. For example, I'm heavily biased towards prioritizing pedestrians and walkability over other forms of transportation - especially cars. I also believe (and there are studies out there about this) that making driving less convenient diverts and reduces overall car usage and traffic. Finally, I prioritize putting retail on streets (not underground) because it contributes to the vitality of an area and increases the number of pedestrians, thus making more pedestrians comfortable, thus ...

This informs a lot of my comments and reactions to this area's redesign, including:

• My concern that the travel lanes are too wide and there are too many of them
• The street grid is not fine-grained enough
• That retail should not be underground

To your final point: aggressively separating uses through the use of pedestrian bridges or underground pedestrian malls (for example) will result in a streetscape that is car-dominated, and that would be a shame in my opinion.

 

[W. K. Lis]

^ The above comment reminded me of these two articles (specifically the reference to a pedestrian bridge):

City Observatory - The myth of pedestrian infrastructure in a world of cars

The City Observatory is a study of modern-day cities and urban development practices.

cityobservatory.org

Most “Pedestrian Infrastructure” Is Really Car Infrastructure

Houston’s “Energy Corridor” gets a pedestrian makeover, but just one thing seems to be missing: Pedestrians.

www.strongtowns.org

The moment we need a bridge for pedestrians to cross a road we’ve failed in the design of the streetscape.

I happen to believe (without proof at this moment!) that even after the redesign this will be a car-dominated environment with low pedestrian usage.

 

[crs1026]

I guess it depends on one's beliefs, who they're willing to inconvenience and long-term goals. For example, I'm heavily biased towards prioritizing pedestrians and walkability over other forms of transportation - especially cars. I also believe (and there are studies out there about this) that making driving less convenient diverts and reduces overall car usage and traffic. Finally, I prioritize putting retail on streets (not underground) because it contributes to the vitality of an area and increases the number of pedestrians, thus making more pedestrians comfortable, thus ...

This informs a lot of my comments and reactions to this area's redesign, including:

• My concern that the travel lanes are too wide and there are too many of them
• The street grid is not fine-grained enough
• That retail should not be underground

To your final point: aggressively separating uses through the use of pedestrian bridges or underground pedestrian malls (for example) will result in a streetscape that is car-dominated, and that would be a shame in my opinion.

In the main I agree with you. What I was trying to say is, Six Points is at the extreme because we are directing all the roads in the area to this one spot. So one should be careful in applying principles that might work well in a less extreme situation. We still have to cultivate an efficient throughput of a great many vehicles here.

The “old” Six Points was a prime example of a layout that was optimised for the auto to the exclusion of amyone else’s interests. I’m glad to see that has been removed. But I resist looking at car/pedestrian as an “or” equation instead of an “and”.

A creative goal ought to be to be able to walk or cycle from one side of Six Points to the other without ever crossing a roadway. . I’m not talking narrow passageways or footbridges - rather, an overall landscape that crosses the roadway in many places and makes the roads invisible . It seems to work for elk in Banff Park, why not for people. Attacking the problem at the level of raising crosswalks etc seems a bit too tactical.

- Paul

 

[Undead]

To Paul's point, it might have been a good idea to bury Dundas here as the one street that cuts weirdly across all the others and slices the area in half.

 

[crs1026]

In driving through the new roadway, I noticed about two weeks ago that No Right Turn on Red signs have appeared at virtually all of the controlled intersections at Six Points, in all directions.

I don't recall these being part of the earlier plan, and I certainly don't recall the signs being there when the new roadway first opened. Did I miss something?

- Paul

 

[Tim MacDonald]

I do remember Dundas eastbound at Kipling having the sign since the start.

 

[fanoftoronto]

In driving through the new roadway, I noticed about two weeks ago that No Right Turn on Red signs have appeared at virtually all of the controlled intersections at Six Points, in all directions.

I don't recall these being part of the earlier plan, and I certainly don't recall the signs being there when the new roadway first opened. Did I miss something?

- Paul

The no right on red limitation makes sense only on high pedestrian or bike traffic areas. This does seem super early for this area as it barely sees any foot or bike traffic right now.

IMO, the signs should only be put up after the buildings have been constructed and the area sees increased foot and bike traffic.

 

[TossYourJacket]

The no right on red limitation makes sense only on high pedestrian or bike traffic areas. This does seem super early for this area as it barely sees any foot or bike traffic right now.

IMO, the signs should only be put up after the buildings have been constructed and the area sees increased foot and bike traffic.

On the other hand, having the no-right-on-red rule in place early prevents people from getting into the habit of making those turns and then just ignoring the signs when they are installed later. For once, the city is actually being proactive about pedestrian safety.

 

[allengeorge]

The city should have a blanket “no right turns on red” mandate.

 

[darth_freeman]

On the other hand...people will just learn to ignore the NROR signs if they are installed too early - before any significant foot or bicycle travel.

 

[W. K. Lis]

The city should have a blanket “no right turns on red” mandate.

From link.

 

[Steve X]

No turns on red would create a huge gridlock on Toronto streets where the left lane is blocked by left turning vehicles waiting for opposite traffic to pass and right land by right turning vehicles waiting for pedestrians to cross. This would mean only a few cars can pass through every cycle.
They’ll have to prohibit one of the turns to prevent this sort of backlog or install queuing lanes. Alternatively they need to convert roads to one way like how Richmond/Adelaide is set up which gives space for traffic to queue.

 

[W. K. Lis]

No turns on red would create a huge gridlock on Toronto streets where the left lane is blocked by left turning vehicles waiting for opposite traffic to pass and right land by right turning vehicles waiting for pedestrians to cross. This would mean only a few cars can pass through every cycle.
They’ll have to prohibit one of the turns to prevent this sort of backlog or install queuing lanes. Alternatively they need to convert roads to one way like how Richmond/Adelaide is set up which gives space for traffic to queue.

Drivers make the mistake of NOT stopping (coming to a complete stop) at the red light (or stop sign) first when they are turning right. You could get a ticket (even from the red light camera) because you did not come to a complete stop.

 

[fanoftoronto]

Drivers make the mistake of NOT stopping at the red light (or stop sign) first when they are turning right.

This seems more of a training drivers issue than no right on red issue. If there are no pedestrians or cars going on the other road, why do cars need to wait for a green light to turn? If the issue is that cars aren't coming to a full stop on reds while turning right, then correct that. Ensure that drivers are adequately fined for making that violation. Turn those red-light cameras to also issue tickets to cars that don't come to a full stop at a red before turning right.

Putting a blanket city-wide "no right on red" policy is non-sensical as then you unnecessarily limit the total number of cars that can drive through an intersection. There are literally 1000's of signaled intersections in Toronto and a small fraction of them have continuous car and pedestrian traffic enough to implement a "No right on red" policy.

If the city built a 6-lane highway and put a 50km/h speed limit, people aren't going to care about that and simply speed to highways speeds. The rules need to make sense with what is being presented to drivers. In the same way, if a driver is forced to wait for 25 seconds while their red cycle turns green, all the while seeing that there aren't any cars or pedestrians crossing the intersection then people are going to ignore the "No right on red" and turn right anyway.

 

[Allandale25]

5,649 days since the first post of this thread:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1463996923937968133